2018 case-law on geographical indications and trade marks
TRANSCRIPT
2018 Case-Law on Geographical Indications and Trade Marks
Oscar MONDEJAR 08.01.2019
ECJ/GC Judgments
Preliminary Ruling (request from DE Court)
Questions on the concepts of
⢠Indirect Commercial Use⢠Evocation⢠False or misleading indication
C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018
ECJ/GC
Clarifies the scope of protection of PGIs (re. Article 16 Regulation 110/2008)
âGraduated list of prohibited conductsâ: from more specific to more general
Direct and indirect commercial use: TM must be identical or similar to the PGI, not sufficient that it simply evokes the PGI
⢠Direct use: affixed to the product⢠Indirect use: in supplementary marketing
C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018
ECJ/GC
Evocation: ⢠Criterion of âimage triggeredâ, ⢠Taking into account partial incorporation of the PGI in the TM, visual or phonetical similarity
and conceptual proximity, ⢠Need of a clear and direct link, ⢠Evocation to be assessed throughout the EU
False or misleading indication: ⢠In any form on the description, presentation or labelling of the product⢠Affords extensive protection
C-44/17 SCOTCH WHISKY ASSOCIATION. 7 June 2018
ECJ/GC
Subject: Cancellation (Absolute Grounds: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM)
Outcome: Action dismissed (no evocation of the PDO)
Focus on:
⢠Function of the PDO⢠Assessment of evocation⢠âOther meaningsâ of the PDO and conceptual comparison
T-774/16 CONSEJO REGULADOR DEL CAVA/EUIPO. 12 July 2018
ECJ/GC
T-774/16
Class 33: âWines with a registered designation of originâ
Conflict with PDO âCAVAâ
Applicantâs arguments:
⢠PDOs which indicate qualities rather than geographical origin ⢠Case of evocation
GC:
⢠Geographical origin and specific qualities go together⢠Visual and phonetic differences between the PDO and the TM⢠ES and FR consumers will also see another meaning in âCava/Caveâ (=cellar)⢠Non ES/FR consumers will focus on visual and phonetic differences⢠No evocation
T-774/16 CONSEJO REGULADOR DEL CAVA/EUIPO. 12 July 2018
ECJ/GC
⢠Preliminary Ruling (request from the Supreme Spanish Court, pending)
⢠Questions:â Evocation of a PDO through figurative signsâ Evocation of a PDO by a producer located in the region but whose products do not comply
with the PDOâ Relevant public to be taken into account (European or from the Member State in question?)
⢠AGâs conclusions on 10/01/2019
C-614/17 Consejo Regulador Queso Manchego (pending)
ECJ/GC
Boards of Appeal Decisions
Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM
Outcome: EUTM Application refused
Focus on:
⢠TM which contains more than one PDO
⢠Labelling and TMs
R 2305/2017-5 CRU CĂTHES DU RHĂNE VACQUEYRAS (fig.) 21 February 2018
BOAs
R 2305/2017-5; EUTM 16 756 777
Class 33: âWines with the PDO Vacqueyrasâ
⢠EUTM contains two PDOs:Côtes du Rhone (broader)Vacqueyras (smaller)
⢠âCahiers des Chargesâ are different⢠Labelling and TMs perform different
functions⢠Limitation of the goods is not possible
Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM
Outcome: EUTM Application refused
Focus on:
⢠TM which reproduces one element of the PGI
⢠âOther meaningsâ of the PGI
R 26/2018-5 MATPRAT (fig.) 23 March 2018
BOAs
R 26/2018-5; EUTM 15 813 298
Class 29: âMeat; poultryâ
⢠EUTM incorporates part of the PGI âPollo y CapĂłn del Pratâ
⢠Likelihood of confusion is not required for evocation
⢠ES consumers will not understand the Norwegian meaning of âMATPRATâ (=food talk) but the reference to a place
Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM
Outcome: EUTM Application refused
Focus on:
⢠TM which reproduces the PDO
⢠âOther meaningsâ of the PDO and/or of the TM
R 44/2018-4 COLINA PIATRA ALBA. 25 May 2018
BOAs
R 44/2018-4; EUTM 16 699 761
Class 33: âWinesâ
⢠EUTM incorporates the whole PDO âAlbaâ
⢠Amounts to a clear case of Article 102(1) of Regulation 1308/2013
⢠Irrelevant (and incongruent) to argue the âAlbaâ has other meanings in IT or RO
COLINA PIATRA ALBA
Subject: Absolute Grounds for Refusal: Article 7(1)(j) EUTM
Outcome: EUTM Application refused
Focus on:
⢠Assessment of evocation of the PDO⢠Element geographically significant of the PDO in the TM⢠Similarity of the products (comparable)
R 2110/2017-1 PIEMONTINO (Fig.). 16 July 2018
BOAs
R 2110/2017-1; EUTM 16 480 253
Class 29: âCheeseâ
⢠EUTM incorporates the geographically significant part of the PGI âToma Piemonteseâ
⢠Amounts to an evocation, according to the case-law
⢠Products are comparable (even with different appearance)
⢠Irrelevant that other cheeses are produced in Piemonte
⢠Applicant could have chosen other reference
Subject: Cancellation (Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal)
New Decision of the BOA following GC Judgment in Case T-359/14 (18/09/2015)
R 251/2016-1 COLOMBIANO COFFEE HOUSE (Fig.). 30 November 2018
BOAs
R 251/2016-1; Cancellation 6 162 C
Subject: Cancellation (Absolute and Relative Grounds for Refusal)
Remits the case back to the Cancellation Division and gives guidance about several aspects related to inter allia:
⢠The scope of protection of the GI⢠The notion of comparable products⢠The reputation of the PGI
Subject: Relative Grounds for Refusal: Article 8(1)(b) EUTM (=no PDO involved)
Outcome: EUTM Application refused for services in Classes 35 and 39
To highlight:
⢠Reputation of a Traditional Term for Wine (or of a PDO)
R 2222/2013-1 CHACOMENA (Fig.). 14 December 2018
BOAs
R 2222/2013-1; Opposition B 2 080 813
Classes 33, 35 and 39
⢠Earlier ES TM âCHACOLĂ DE BIZKAIA DENOMINACIĂN DE ORIGENâ
⢠Reputation of a TTW or of a PDO is different from that of a TM
⢠Reputation of a TTW or of a PDO not to be taken into account in an opposition under Article 8(1)(b) EUTMR
Presentation
Status DRAFT / APPROVED
Approved by owner -
Authors-
-
Contributors-
-
Revision history
Version Date Author Description
0.1 DD/MM/YYYY
0.1 DD/MM/YYYY
0.1 DD/MM/YYYY